- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge orders Dept. of Education employees to be reinstated
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:40 pm to roadGator
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:40 pm to roadGator
He’s going to post the statute above that lists approximately a dozen positions who Congress has some oversight of. According to what I found from an online search the DOE had over 4000 employees in 2024
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 2:41 pm
3
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:41 pm to roadGator
Largely that there's positions that can't be changed or eliminated unless by congress.
Go check earlier in the thread, it's all there for you to see.
Go check earlier in the thread, it's all there for you to see.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:43 pm to minister of truth
So we gotta keep twelve commies on staff at the DOE.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:45 pm to atlgamecockman
You do know that Congress insists on these oversights during budgeting to have leverage over the department in future budgeting negotiations. If the Executive does not request funding for a department in the future, Congress cannot force a department to remain in place
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:47 pm to minister of truth
See here's the thing y'all can't seem to wrap your head around.
The act I mentioned earlier had some specific roles defined (8-12) in the act as being created by law. The thing is, that law passed in 1978. So you have decades of further legislation being implemented on top of that with more and more roles being created. So just because I didn't post all of them, doesn't mean there aren't more.
Is it the whole department? No likely not.
But my guess is, Linda McMahon didn't know about this because she's obviously unqualified and tried eliminate some of these positions anyway.
Then there's the funding side of things as well. Congress sets the budget and the executive branch spends it, re:Impoundment Act posted earlier.
So 1. removing positions that only Congress can remove and 2. not spending appropriated funds got this into court where Trump and McMahon got BTFO.
Make sense?
The act I mentioned earlier had some specific roles defined (8-12) in the act as being created by law. The thing is, that law passed in 1978. So you have decades of further legislation being implemented on top of that with more and more roles being created. So just because I didn't post all of them, doesn't mean there aren't more.
Is it the whole department? No likely not.
But my guess is, Linda McMahon didn't know about this because she's obviously unqualified and tried eliminate some of these positions anyway.
Then there's the funding side of things as well. Congress sets the budget and the executive branch spends it, re:Impoundment Act posted earlier.
So 1. removing positions that only Congress can remove and 2. not spending appropriated funds got this into court where Trump and McMahon got BTFO.
Make sense?
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:48 pm to minister of truth
quote:
According to what I found from an online search the DOE had over 4000 employees in 2024
Can you imagine a judge blocking the reduction of government staff under a Democrat?
But here’s the queer altgamecockfag saying that the law requires the Dept of Ed to have 40000 employees.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:48 pm to roadGator
Possibly during the term of that budget agreement. If there is no request from the Executive for a department under its authority, Congress cannot not force the Executive to maintain a Department
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:48 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
But my guess is
My guess is that you don’t know shite.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:49 pm to atlgamecockman
Congress cannot force the Executive to maintain a Department. The executive simply does not request funding
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:50 pm to atlgamecockman
BTFO?
I don’t speak LGBTQ
I don’t speak LGBTQ
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:50 pm to bigjoe1
What a crock of shite.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:53 pm to the808bass
Nope. It’s obvious to anyone who is not an ideologue and/or has TDS that it’s judicial warfare from judges with a political agenda. Judges seem more political than ever
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:56 pm to minister of truth
Ruling on facts of case brought before judge = judicial warfare. Got it.
The cases are assigned to judges randomly. You know this?
Also don't jump on me about judge shopping... the 5th circuit is bought and owned by Rs...
The cases are assigned to judges randomly. You know this?
Also don't jump on me about judge shopping... the 5th circuit is bought and owned by Rs...
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:58 pm to atlgamecockman
What if the judge’s reasoning was “Trump said he was going to try to shut down the dept of education and this looks like him shutting down the department of education so I’m not going to allow anyone to be let go?”
Would that be satisfactory judicial reasoning?
Would that be satisfactory judicial reasoning?
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:00 pm to atlgamecockman
So now you’re arguing there’s no judicial warfare carried on by the entrenched powers of DC? Did we see anywhere close to the number of judgements coming from district judges against the Executive before Trump was in office?
Edit: what’s the ratio of these district judges’ determinations from democratappointed judges versus Republican appointed judges?
Edit: what’s the ratio of these district judges’ determinations from democratappointed judges versus Republican appointed judges?
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:01 pm to Warboo
That judge is writing checks that his a$$ can't cover.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:05 pm to minister of truth
quote:In many cases they can, or at least prevent that money from being used elsewhere.
Congress cannot force the Executive to maintain a Department. The executive simply does not request funding
If Congress says use money for X, specifically earmarked for X, you have to spend it on X. That's so the executive can not end-around Congress' (the people) wishes. It is the 'other' purse string.
In some cases, not earmarked, within a dept or such, Congress has given them discretion. But the idea that extends to the existence of a dept is not going to happen.
But what this highlights is a R congress not participating in cuts. Whether it be DOGE or an outright elimination Trump promised- the R Congress could back him.
Hell, the could lead the way. They do neither.
Johnson could at lease defund the DoEd, the 'first purse string' and solve the issue. Defunding seems to be popular since 2020.
ETA: where were the Fed district judge's TRO's against Biden selling border wall fencing panels for pennies on the dollar? crickets. Uneven application of the law for political gains or advantage. I'm just not sure there's a name for that yet.... hmmmm.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:13 pm to I20goon
I agree Congress has been no help. I’m not implying that the administration would request funds previously designated for the Department of education to be used elsewhere. I’m just saying they are within their rights not to request funding for the department of education at all. Now whether Congress would oblige that request is uncertain.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:14 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
The cases are assigned to judges randomly.
bullchit…. I know that’s the way it is supposed to work, but there’s no amount of bs you can spin that will convince me that a former ACLU employee turned Biden-appointed judge wasn’t “shopped” …. Just as has been proven with other Lawfare cases
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:17 pm to minister of truth
quote:indeed. I'm with you. And that should have been the first step in this process to avoid these judges altogether.
I’m just saying they are within their rights not to request funding for the department of education at all.
quote:and there is the crux of the matter. If they didn't oblige, he would be forced to deal with money he doesn't want to spend. And I do mean forced.... by the judicial branch.
Now whether Congress would oblige that request is uncertain.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News